InterAgency Coordination and the Benghazi Memo

The claim that “no one knows who changed the CIA talking points,” is total horseshit. Listening to some of the Senators and Representatives today befuddled by the inability of David Petraeus, Jim Clapper and Mike Morell to identify who changed the CIA memo during the inter-agency coordination process, and the accompanying cluelessness of most of the media to grasp that this was just a big smokescreen, I am compelled to elaborate on how an unclass intel product is generated.

We know, thanks to CBS, that the so-called “talking points” were drafted by the CIA. What does that mean? An analyst in the Counter Terrorism Center aka CTC (most likely) was asked to put together a brief presenting what happened and who carried out the attack. As the analysts puts together the talking points, he or she will start coordinating with other analysts. In this case, for example, the CTC analyst will ask other analysts who work on the same issue or topic to review the prose and and approve the draft. This is called coordination.

Once the analyst secures the approval of colleagues with a substantive interest within his or her branch, the analyst must reach out to others with a substantive interest, such as the Libyan analyst. Once the Libyan analyst gives the CTC analyst recommended changes, two things happen. First, the analyst gives the Branch Chief a copy to edit. Second, the analyst then reaches out to analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the FBI and the National Counter Terrorism Center. Since this was an Unclass piece, the analyst probably would not coordinate with the National Security Agency aka NSA because there was no information drawn from signal intercepts. If such info had been included, then the brief would have had to classified at a least the SECRET level.

Once the interagency input is received a couple of things can happen.

I recall getting into knockdown, drag out verbal brawls with counterparts at DIA and, on occasion, at INR, over the wording and conclusions of pieces I was writing for the National Intelligence Daily. We would either reach a compromise or I would diplomatically tell them to fuck off. If I did the latter, then the person from the objecting agency had the option of writing a dissent. In other words, putting a separate paragraph into my piece indicating disagreement. Dissents were rare. We faced pressure from our respective bosses to work out our issues and reach consensus.

Once the inter-agency piece was coordinated, it then moved up the CIA hierarchy. The folks in the front office of CTC would go over the draft and then, ultimately, someone on the staff of the Director of Analysis. (Note, the Director of Analysis reports directly to the Director of CIA, i.e. Petraeus at the time). The only people left to coordinate with at this point would be the folks at the Director of National Intelligence–that’s Jim Clapper’s outfit.

The coordinated talking points, once approved by the DNI, would then be delivered to the National Security Council (note, that asshole, John Brennan, decided unilaterally to rename the NSC as the National Security Staff aka NSS). We know that the talking points that came out of the CIA were reviewed and approved by the DNI’s staff. The talking points did not go out to any other Department or Organization for clearance at that point.

That leaves only one possibility for who altered the agreed upon community position that the terrorist attack in Benghazi had been carried out by jihadists with links to Al Qaedaa–the NSS. The name of the principal analyst who drafted those talking points is recorded at CIA and included somewhere in the document delivered to the White House. Clapper, Petraeus and Morell easily know who that is. But they were not put under oath, therefore they could easily claim they did not know who “changed” the talking points.
That is delusional. Anyone who has ever worked at CIA and coordinated a community piece knows how the process works. No other Agency or Department would unilaterally change a coordinated piece.

There is only one entity in Washington who tamper with intel community approved talking points–that is the White House.

Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

Anon777777

I don’y have any reason to doubt you on process, so here is my takeaway: If you know what you are talking about, and any NSA intel would have required a secret classification, then I can make some conclusions.

One, there is NO electronic intel behind the unclassified talking points, because if the talking points were based on electronic intel, then we would not be talking about them at all, ideally, since they would be classified secret.

Two, the references to al queda were taken out, and we already know what other things were changed, and we also know that the ONLY intel, so far, which hasn’t been debunked, is the “cell phone intercepts.” Supposedly.
This suggests that the references to al queda were taken out because they relied on cell phone intercepts. So, how do we know that out here in unclasssified land?
We know that because it was leaked. By whom? For WHAT reason? This is what I think: The cell phone intercept intel was faked, just like so many other “leaked” intel data points were faked. (For example, FALSE claims that Ansar Al Sharia took credit on social media).
The leak makes it possible to construct a politically motivated narrative about the talking points. If there is no way to talk about “al queda” leads, then there is no way to construct a politically motivated narrative about them.
So, either there ARE cell phone intercepts (I doubt it) and they were leaked by someone inside the intel community for the political benefit of the GOP, OR there are no cell phone intercepts, but the existence of them cannot be confirmed or denied, so there is no way to challenge the fictitious intel used as the foundation for a politically motivated attack.
Al queda does some heinous things, no doubt about that. Here’s what they don’t do: They don’t conduct highly sophisticated black operations with accompanying elaborate disinformation campaigns, and then deny responsibility.
The British? The French? Sure. The Russians? The Israelis? I could buy that too. But the masters are the neoconservative wing of the American Intel community.
“We don’t know who changed the talking points. No Such Agency.”

Mike Monroe

Larry Johnson what do you think about this:

“In a interview immediately after that hearing [capured on CNN – see link below] explaining what Petraeus said, Rep. Peter King’s (R-NY) said that the CIA initially wrote in its assessment that attack was connected to an Al Qaeda-affiliated group, but that point was removed during a standard review by the broader intelligence community.

King said that Petraeus testified that he was not upset that the reference to Al Qaeda was removed from the intelligence assessment before it was made public. In fact, King made clear that the CIA OK’d the assessment after the reference to Al Qaeda was removed:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn’t know.

Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

Larry it was Obama a year earlier not Brennan see the press release link I provided. Brennan is the tool not the builder. There are many Brennan’s willing to serve power there is, fortunately, only one Obama.

MrLynn

The Dems are attempting to defend the White House by claiming it was all too confusing to sort out for the American people, as in which terrorist groups were actually responsible, so instead they had to go with “the video.” They weren’t really lying, you see; they just didn’t want to confuse us rubes.

John McCain is right to demand a Select Committee investigation, a la Watergate, but he won’t get anywhere unless someone can come up with an actual crime, like the Plumbers break-in, that would force the Democrats to give in and create such a committee. Otherwise, Harry Reid can just refuse, and that’s that.

Now if there were an actual recording of Jarrett or Brennan or someone saying, “Don’t say anything about terrorists or al Qaeda; just tell Susan to say, ‘Video, video’. The suckers will buy it,” then we might get somewhere.

Not that John Dean was any prince, but that’s what we need right now. Maybe the House can start subpoenaing White House staffers and running them through the wringer until one cracks.

/Mr Lynn

http://www.facebook.com/je.colon.3 Je Colon

Something tells me that it was Valerie Jarret’s hand that was involved in this mess. She is too quiet lately and she has not popped her head out to protect Rice or Obama. Everytime something goes wrong she, like Rice, goes from liberal media to liberal media with talking points.

Soo the National Security Council is now the National Security Staff? I wonder the point of the name change

Steve Diamond

No, NSC still exists, please read my explanation below. But the creation of the NSS is important.

http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

Steve,
Your explanation is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Stephen Diamond

I don’t think we disagree as much as you suggest. But I think it is important to ask why the NSS was formed. I think it was to help bolster the peculiar system of dual power that Obama uses. He wants to ignore the Cabinet and it was very helpful with that goal to weaken the NSC by pulling away its resources. He could not afford a frontal attack because that would have required Congress. So on paper the NSC still exists. But this President does not want to work with Congressionally approved national security figures so he used a PPD to create the NSS. Brennan is a tool of Obama and Jarrett not the other way around.

http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

Steve,
The NSS was not “formed.” It was a simple change in terminology and usage. It started with a memo Brennan put out in the summer of 2010. Pure, capricious, bureaucratic nonsense.

This kind of ground offensive in the midst of a small city the size of D.C. – going from street to street and building to building – is extremely dangerous for the IDF because of the risk of snipers and IPGs.

I don’t think Israel wants to do this at all but unless Hamas stops immediately then it will happen.

TeakWoodKite

Time to resettle Gaza.

Hokma

If they are forced to go into gaza I am sure they will get rid of Hamas

Fred82

I doubt it.

Seriously, either Hamas receives sanctuary from the Saudis, Egyptians, and or Iranians and rebuilds itself or the IC gets lobbied to pressure the Israelis to stop short of wiping out of Hamas.

Either way, I don’t see HAMAS’s obituary being written at the conclusion of these events.

Fred82

Honestly,

I haven’t been that impressed with skill or commitment of Hamas’s rank and file.

On the other hand, if genuine Al Qaida fighters are present, this operation might be much, much more dangerous. AQ fighters are genuinely committed to the cause and are far more skilled than the rank and file of affiliate movements.

Likewise, the presence of Hezbollah fighters and Quds Force personnel is a real possibility.

There are also the very real threats of IEDs and propaganda operations.

These are important facts for those questioning Gen. Petraeus to know. Do
you have your contacts within government to pass this information to? If so, did you do so?

I also ask as did/does Theymustbemorans that wrote in, Why the hell wasn’t Petraeus put under oath before he testified today?

Obviously whenever there is questioning about any subject it seems more like a dog and pony show anymore. I have noticed that when an incident occurs and the news reaches the general public certain factors will occur (no matter
if Republican and/or Democrat).

1. Those in government know they have to make the
general population feel as those within government are as upset and grossed as the general population. Those in government know they must present enough of a dog
barking and tail wagging to appease the general public and they know it will be just a matter of time before the general public will become tired of the situation / questioning and it will all settle down and then back to business as usual.

2. Those in government know those that commit the
crimes know for fact that after the questioning is over , they will walk away with all their assets , retirement in tack, there will be no prison time. Not to difficult to endure questioning when you already know these facts ahead of time.
Crime most certainly does pay well when you are amongst those in government no matter what level.

So all of this will go away as it is obviously doing so now.

General Peatrus is not someone that I would want to entrust my childs well being to during war and/or at peace time…It is obvious he thinks very little of the lives that were lost and it is obvious that his belief is, I must do my best to lie to cover my own behind at all cost and these lives were just considered collateral damage. The man is without morals, ethics, faithfulness to his men serving under him and/or to
his family.

Van_Dessel

Let’s not beat around the bush. Why isn’t Rice subpoenaed with the regards to her statements. Who gave her the talking points, then subpoena that person, until the story makes sense. This is just white hot grabage right now.

HObama HObamanana

Mr. Obama is the one that needs to be subpoenaed and questioned under oath. Remember, he said to go after him.

HObama HObamanana

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

In a really twisted way I nearly laughed my ass off about the FBI and “circular reporting loop” lines.

Van_Dessel

How is that different to telling the press that the U.S. military (but not the contractors) will leave Afghanistan in 2014? The U.S. government telegraphs that, to the world, but not this.

Where was all this concern for a “black woman” when Condi Rice was being battered? Not saying she didn’t deserve it, because I am NOT a Condoleezza Rice fan, just wonder about the concern for a “black woman.”

The hypocrisy never ends with these cockroaches!

If these women cannot take the same amount of crap as a man then they need to get the hell out of public life. What is the new feminist theme song, “I am woman, hear me whine”?
And what a man guy that obama is, paints a target on Susan Rice and then rushes to her rescue.

HObama HObamanana

Rice was probably selected for the very reasons given for this current faux outrage. What else explains why someone that Obama admits had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi was chosen to speak for the Administration?

KenoshaMarge

I’m sure she was. Then the race-baiters can rush to the defense of the poor little woman.
What a crock!

getfitnow

What if George Bush sent John Bolton out to blame the 9/11/01 attacks on a freak mechanical malfunction of 4 planes and we’re
waiting to know more after the FAA to investigates.

Do not fear Isreal, you have the backing of the US and Obama! Oh wait…

MG6

I wonder how the liberal Jews in NY, and elsewhere, are feeling now about their vote for Obama.
But then…history tells us that they are in denial like the Jews of Germany.

Hokma

No, they just don’t really care.

We’ve been in contact with people in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and they are not going to work or to school – they are going to bomb shelters.

Obama wants to de-escalate? How do you de-escalate a dirt bag group of terrorists like Hamas who have launched over 8,500 rockets into Israel since Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005?

The irony is that the only reason the people in Gaza can survive is because of Israel. For Israel provides and controls all the electric power into Gaza. They could easily choke these people by cutting off power and blocking all food from entering. But despite the constant bombardment they keep things going for humanitarian reasons.

Popsmoke

So much for serious investigations….. I hope that Jordan and Israel can survive.. shoot I hope we survive….

Fred82

Anyone wanna bet that Valerie Jarrett did it?

getfitnow

Call Vegas and put your $$ on one or both of these:

Valerie Jarrett

David Axelrod

If the idea (deleting the al-Qaeda reference) didn’t originate with
one of them, it was most certainly vetted and approved by them.

None of this should come as any great surprise. We were warned, weren’t we, that what Obama promised was nothing more than just words. After all, the same guy that would go before crowds of adoring worshipers and claim that he was going to have the most transparent Administration in American history asked the Supreme Court to curtail the rights of citizens to take him at his word.

Usually in Freedom of Information Act cases, the government is on the opposite side, fighting to withhold documents from the public. That put the government’s lawyer, Anthony Yang, in the awkward position of trying to stop the justices from ruling too expansively in the government’s favor.

He objected when Justice Sonia Sotomayor observing the law’s intent to promote “full disclosure,” said that FOIA exceptions should be given their “narrowest meaning.”

“The government wants to abandon the principle that we’ve set forth in our cases that exceptions to FOIA are to be narrowly construed?” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

“We do not embrace that principle,” Mr. Yang said.

“Even though we did?” asked Justice Scalia.

“The government has broader interests beyond a single case,” said Mr. Yang, who in a separate case last month urged the justices to let the government define the exception for “personnel rules and practices” broadly enough to withhold a map from public disclosure.

If there is anything that deserves our surprise it is that Obama is so blatant about lying, at manipulating what appears to be the truth. It’s truly astounding.

Dave L.

It’s just business as usual for the Obama idiots, still no answers on the killing of the Border patrol Agent either. It’s been totally taken off the map, the lame stream media just lays down at the feet of the mesiah …

06:15 A.M. Anonymous activists launch an attack on Israeli websites, defacing and disabling many websites including the political party Kadima’s website. Activists claim they had wiped databases of the Foreign Ministry and Bank of Jerusalem clean.

Van_Dessel

Speaking of classified documents, Broadwell’s computer has classified information. Why is she not held or questioned by the FBI? How easy it to pass this information to a hard disk or USB stick?
Instead, Holder says it’s not a problem. What the heck? How does he know> ” I know because I say so”?
This Broadwell woman has traveled to “60 countries over 15 years”, according to herself. Maybe she has picked up the spy game along the way…

HObama HObamanana

It’s true that it is easy to pass information to a hard disk or flash drive but the operating system would keep a log of the transfer to prove that it was done. That said, a person with sufficient know how could wipe such traces.

HObama HObamanana

Why is Congress allowing anyone to give a behind closed doors briefing and not have it be under oath?

What I’m getting is that the people that are supposed to be representing us in government aren’t asking the obvious questions to get the answers we need. I want to know why. Because my own assumptions make me quite uncomfortable.

getfitnow

I agree, sadly. For God’s sake and 4 dead Americans, where did the stand down orders come from,,better yet,,,,,WHO. Who was watching this in real time? POTUS wants to always check the transcript—where’s the paper trail with signatures?

mergeright

And WHY? Why were we there in the first place despite all the known danger. What was so important that required sacrificed lives, weakened national security, and a blatant lies and cover ups? And why are so many willing to participate in that cover up?

randi

hostages or weapons

mergeright

Weapons. Hmm. Weapons to enemies and other assorted bad guys, all while using any means necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of Constitutionally protected Americans.
How ironic.

it was not the wh that changed the talking points , it was the other guy. the white house said so

HObama HObamanana

Someone needs to just come out and say without reservation that The Obama Administration knew this was Al Qaeda from the start and intentionally hid that fact from the American people because it was in direct contradiction to the campaign claim that Al Qaeda was on the run. A claim they had made quite publicly not a week before at their Democrat Convention. And stop all this pussy footing around and pretending like we need to offer these people any due respect.

elizabethrc

One patriot in the White House, just one is all we need.
That no one will speak the truth says volumes about the lack of honor and relative unimportance of the sanctity of our country extant in our politics today.
There is great sadness in this realization.

binky354

As an aside, Daily Caller is reporting that the woman who was behind bringing Petraeus down has dined at the White House 3 times this year. Hmm. Conspiracy.

He consults with al sharpton on fiscal policy and trade unions on cutting entitlements. When does he consult with Congress on anything?

HELENK2

he don’t need no stinkin congress

getfitnow

“Resist We Much” Sharpton is there with his hand in OUR pockets to get more of OUR money for him and HIS people and to pay off his IRS debt.

It really is extraordinary and bizarre. But, he “won.”

Steve Diamond

Larry, The NSC was not renamed by Brennan. Only Congress can do that or change the NSC as it was created by statute. What happened is in some ways more serious and insidious. Obama used a Presidential Directive to merge the staff of the HSC and NSC and create an NSS that reports to Brennan. This drains power away from the NSC and its Congressionally approved officers and Cabinet members. This is part of the dual power or shadow government structure that has been a hallmark of Obama and Jarrett from day one. It centralizes power in a less accountable and legitimate and transparent form. This structure may have been responsible for how the President outmaneuvered Petraeus and others during recent events.

Steve Diamond

Sorry, of course, the NSS report to Donilon not Brennan.

HObama HObamanana

They probably actually report to Jarrett.

Steve Diamond

On a substantive level, of course they do. Donilon is a political hack with no FP experience. Hmm, come to think of it so is VJ!

http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

Sorry to pop your bubble, but Brennan has renamed it and, in all communications and messages, it is referred to as NSS not NSC. I have no idea what HSC is. You need to explain that one. All I can tell you is that the acronym NSS is now being used in lieu of NSC, even with respect to law that stipulates NSC.

Steve Diamond

Yes, the NSS name is being used. But the NSC and HSC still exist. Only Congress can abolish them. HSC is the Homeland Security Council established by Bush. Obama came in and in May of 09 issued a Directive that combined the staff of the HSC and the NSC into a new so-called National Security Staff without Congressional approval.

The NSC, formally, still exists, but all of its former resources have shifted to to the NSS under Donilon (and Brennan (as HSA)). Congress had no role which I think is a huge mistake. The result is that a body with some legitimacy backed by Congress (because the members of the NSC are statutory) is largely now displaced by a new bureaucracy controlled by the NSA/HSA who, of course, answers only to Obama.

I have no doubt that Obama uses this new NSS structure to by pass his Cabinet and Congress.

http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

Steve,
You need to catch up and ignore what is written in law. I agree with you that NSS is not anywhere in any statute, It is a creation pulled squarely out of John Brennan’s ass.
HSC and HSA are totally irrelevant and powerless. They are acronyms that exist on a page.
The bottomline is that the NSC staff is now the NSS and the NSC is not referred to in documents and messages as it once was. Why? Not because of statute but because John Brennan decreed it so.

Theymustbemorons

Why the hell wasn’t Petraeus put under oath before he testified today? Or is that process only reserved for baseball players?

Popsmoke

Because congress can no longer conduct serious investigations….

KenoshaMarge

Can’t or won’t?

HObama HObamanana

It is absolutely the latter.

randi

Likely to protect him from being legally charged with perjury. This is the new normal, you know? Nobody takes responsibility – they just point blame. Sad

Theymustbemorons

That is sad, randi. Makes sense, but makes me wanna cry.

Retired_from_SPOnaj

Larry,
Maybe it was someone from the cleaning crew. The talking points were left on Clapper’s admin asst’s desk overnight and someone from the cleaning crew read them and knew that it wasn’t the best thing for Obama, so they changed the talking points with no one being the wiser before they were passed on to the White House and Amb. Rice for use on the Sunday talk shows. Since no one knows who changed the talking points, this would seem to be the only plausible explanation.
You’re welcome, Valerie!

Popsmoke

Dam….and I was going to blame the dog…..

Scorpio

Hey you, leave Bo outta this!

Scorpio

Bo never done anything!

Fred82

I agree.

Lumping people like Jarrett and Axelrod in with dogs is quite insulting…………….. to dogs.

Honestly, I think we would be better off with dogs running things instead of Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.

getfitnow

Didn’t POTUS say we’re all mongrels?

KenoshaMarge

Well Fred there’s Dogs and then there’s dogs.

Fred82

Hahahaha,

That’s a good one.

KenoshaMarge

Glad you liked it. We can all use a chuckle these days.

VirginiainCarolina

And don’t try to work in Seamus either! And I mean it! Ha ha

Sally Vaci

“The claim that “no one knows who changed the CIA talking points,” is total horseshit.”

Larry, I really wish you could learn to get to the point.

What could have changed things today, putting every witness under oath? Also, are you saying that the politicos & journos have no idea how the system works (as you have just explained here) because if they did, they would know what questions to ask to cast suspicion on the WH?

HARP2

Ask yourself this:

Has anyone of these people you mentioned asked Obama if he was notified of the previous attacks on the consulate ?

Therein you will find your answer.

TeakWoodKite

If Holder can pick and choose, Why not Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, and lest not for get Valerie “Revenge” Jarrett.

Obama would rather go to the oval office to watch an episode of Homeland than do any real work. Obama is not only the first “black man” (sic) to hold the of President, he’s the first clueless town joker to get re-elected to the office.

sowsear1

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of
entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier
to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore
the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate
willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much
deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of
what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind
anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The
Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.
It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who
made him their president.”

Vaclav Klaus

Fred82

Yuri Bezmenov seemed to think that it would take at least one generation to undo Communist subversion.

Fortunately, I don’t think everyone that voted for Obama is one of “Bezmenov’s children.”

When we account for the Republican Party’s follies plus the fact that many voted against the Republicans vice for Obama, I think there might be hope yet.

Of course the utter campaign of deception waged by much of the MSM must be considered as well.

getfitnow

BINGO!

TeakWoodKite

agreed.

HObama HObamanana

There seem to be an awful lot of questions that aren’t being asked.

Popsmoke

That’s because there is a lot of blame to go around….

getfitnow

The buck stops….

getfitnow

He was busy eating his waffle.

exmaple

“putting every witness under oath?

That often has a truth-finding effect, yes.

“I really wish you could learn to get to the point.”

The ultimate point is did the White House (eg., VJ) say “no” to rescue support, and did they think the “video” story would help their position. Or did VJ or O believe it must be a video reaction on their own, and decided not to attack the “protesters.” Something’s not right, and it goes back to the time of the attack, not Rice’s statement. She was just part of the confusing cover up.

getfitnow

Obama was not lying about telling the truth about the lie he now claims wasn’t vetted until the truth was known to not
be a lie, so the original semi-lie will not be considered a total
untruth until a new, coherent lie can be supplanted for the provisional
truth that was superseded by the first temporary lie.

So standby:(

HObama HObamanana

Hilarious! Loved it.

elizabethrc

The most important question of all isn’t being asked. Who ordered the people who could have rescued the ambassador and the men to ‘stand down’?
We need to have that answered. That person needs to be held accountable in a measurable, concrete way. Not just a hand slap, but exposure, trial and punishment. If it was Obama, impeachment hearings need to start.

HObama HObamanana

They won’t impeach Obama because they know how such a move would be played politically. Charges of racism are all we would hear. Day in and day out. So it ain’t gonna happen.

For all the nonsense we hear about how big and bad and mean those nasty Republicans are they are truly outclassed by the Dims when it comes to being despicable assholes. And they know it. So what you will hear is a lot of bluster but very little action.

I agree with McCain/Graham/Ayotte that the only way to get to the bottom of this is to have a select committee. Put everyone under oath and have the hearing out in the open. Enough of this piecemeal political posturing nonsense.

I would go so far as to hold up every single piece of legislation until the Dims agree to it. A good old fashioned Filibusterathon. Our country and four brave Americans deserve and need it.

People are becoming immune to the racism charges. They have overplayed that accusation and it’s become somewhat laughable to a growing number of Americans.
Good luck with thinking that putting anyone from this administration under oath is a means of getting an honest answer. Accountability has no meaning to these people.

Hokma

We would already know who that was but Obama will not throw himself under his bus.

TeakWoodKite

You can’t impeach Barry for manslaughter.

elizabethrc

He is commander in Chief. Wouldn’t it be covered as dereliction of duty if it is proved that he gave the order to stand down?

HObama HObamanana

The Oath of Office he took states that Obama will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He can easily point to his resume and use the excuse that he is doing the best that he can. Who will be able to argue with that?

elizabethrc

Personally, I think we need to add a bit more to that oath, specifically…and if I do a crappy job, I’ll haul my own sorry butt out of the White House.
Probably won’t happen!!!!

TeakWoodKite

What are the legal requirements to use “as is” the “community piece” that was produced?
This isn’t just a matter of the “16 words” anymore. It’s all of them.

http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

If it is “unclass” the consumer can use it anyway they want. What makes the current issue so outrageous is that the White House deliberately fucked with an intel community product in order to cook the results. Bush did similar stuff but was better at hiding his tracks.

TeakWoodKite

Thanks LJ.

Leadership Ethics and the the Ministry of Truth, aka Motel 1600;never shall the two meet.

When the NIE about Iran came out and Bush was objecting to the results in public… how was that different, because of the classification?
It’s a scary mindset that would intentionally lie and worse …when it’s the oval office doing it.
What would be the downside in Barry’s brain? He’s been lying for the entire time. He sent Susan Rice out there to pass the lie test, like becoming a made guy…murder the truth and your in.

deehra

We are to believe we are led by at least two branches of gov”t, which employ people who know nothing, at least nothing unflattering to them. I want one of their jobs, I can ‘know nothing’ with the best of them.

This website and the articles posted therein are contributed by authors who have no affiliation to the website or the website’s owner/moderator. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only and has been contributed by the owners for no monetary compensation. The owner/moderator makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by accessing any website link(s) provided in a post. As such, the owner/moderator will not be liable for any errors or omissions contained in the information set forth in an authored post nor for the availability of said information. The owner/moderator will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages arising from any information set forth in any author’s post(s) and will not indemnify the authors for any purpose arising from or related to the author’s post. By posting an article on this blog, the author, and the author alone, expressly assumes any liability related to the post. The owner/moderator does not share personal information with third-parties nor does the owner store information collected about your visit for use other than to analyze content performance. The owner/moderator is not responsible for the republishing of the content contained on this blog on other websites or media without permission. The owner/moderator of the blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice due to (a) comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam; (b) comments including profanity; (c) comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive; or (d) comments that attack a person or their character. The decision to remove any comments that violate the terms and conditions herein are made at the sole discretion of the owner/moderator. The policies, terms and conditions herein are subject to change at any time and without prior notice.

We defray costs with sales and donations. Do you shop at Amazon? Click any ad here, make any purchase, and we get a percentage. Thanks!

ABOUT US

Tired of spin? Larry Johnson offers no quarter on issues of your security.